3 ms·

"There really is a double-standard at work here. When musicians/songwriters say they're being fleeced, members of this (hacker) community pooh-pooh them, and ac

"There really is a double-standard at work here. When musicians/songwriters say they're being fleeced, members of this (hacker) community pooh-pooh them, and accuse them of being dinosaurs who just don't get it." I think the difference is that some musicians/songwriters expect their creative works to be a perpetual source of revenue. By contrast, developers usually expect a particular version of software to generate revenue for a few years at best, and even then there's the expectation that the developer should release patches throughout the lifespan of the software. Indeed, it's becoming increasingly common for software companies to open source old versions, such as Id with its Id Tech engines. When was the last time a prominent musician released their old works under a creative commons license? I think the attitude of hackers is that "We have to continually create new things in order to make a buck, so why should some musicians expect to keep being paid for a song they wrote a generation ago?"

seertaak 18y ago
weavejester, having seen other comments I really appreciate you having an intellectually honest stab at my contention. But I think you're wide of the mark. First off, musicians/songwriters don't expect their creative works to be a perpetual source of revenue. In the UK copyright expires after 50 years. Granted, that's not a short period of time, but nor is it perpetual. And while I agree that the software business does entail continuing updates, and while I too applaud idSoftware's policies regarding open-sourcing old versions, there is a fundamental difference between music and software, namely that music is not amenable to small, incremental updates. I mean, what exactly do you propose, that musicians remaster their album every year (they do it every so often anyway, actually!), or add extra overdubs or tracks each year? Surely it's not difficult to see that this approach isn't workable, is it? Do you really want a session musician to go into the studio and overdub, say, trane's solo on So What?!!! > When was the last time a prominent musician released their old works under a creative commons license? I agree that that would be awesome. But musicians are taking steps in this direction. For example, Kanye West offers downloads of the stems to his music -- that's the music equivalent of providing the source code. So there is movement on this front. And most bands offer some portion of their music for free on their myspaces, so whether or not it's free as in freedom, it is freely available for those who want to listen. Finally, is it your position that the hacker ethos considers it frivolous or morally wrong to collect revenue for patent royalties? It strikes me that this is quite similar to music royalties in that all the "work" is done up-front.
- plinkplonk 18y ago
  "Finally, is it your position that the hacker ethos considers it frivolous or morally wrong to collect revenue for patent royalties?" for software patents, certainly.
- weavejester 18y ago
  Given that the average lifespan is around 75 years, a 50 year copyright represents the vast majority of a person's adult life. For the artist, I don't think there's much difference between that and perpetuity. And those artists it does affect, such as Sir Cliff Richard, have not exactly been fans of the limit ;) As for how to apply a continual update model to music, I'm not certain. I'm not a musician, so I couldn't venture a guess. But it seems to me that there isn't going to be a lot of money to be made in future from licensing past hits. The software industry manages okay, but perhaps you're right and music can't use the same model. In which case, musicians need to find another model that works, or slowly be consumed by a world where copying is increasingly cheap and increasingly hard to prosecute. As for patents, it's my position that people should not be able to patent software. Fortunately for me, that's still the case in the EU.

seertaak 18y ago

weavejester, having seen other comments I really appreciate you having an intellectually honest stab at my contention. But I think you're wide of the mark. First off, musicians/songwriters don't expect their creative works to be a perpetual source of revenue. In the UK copyright expires after 50 years. Granted, that's not a short period of time, but nor is it perpetual. And while I agree that the software business does entail continuing updates, and while I too applaud idSoftware's policies regarding open-sourcing old versions, there is a fundamental difference between music and software, namely that music is not amenable to small, incremental updates. I mean, what exactly do you propose, that musicians remaster their album every year (they do it every so often anyway, actually!), or add extra overdubs or tracks each year? Surely it's not difficult to see that this approach isn't workable, is it? Do you really want a session musician to go into the studio and overdub, say, trane's solo on So What?!!! > When was the last time a prominent musician released their old works under a creative commons license? I agree that that would be awesome. But musicians are taking steps in this direction. For example, Kanye West offers downloads of the stems to his music -- that's the music equivalent of providing the source code. So there is movement on this front. And most bands offer some portion of their music for free on their myspaces, so whether or not it's free as in freedom, it is freely available for those who want to listen. Finally, is it your position that the hacker ethos considers it frivolous or morally wrong to collect revenue for patent royalties? It strikes me that this is quite similar to music royalties in that all the "work" is done up-front.

plinkplonk 18y ago
"Finally, is it your position that the hacker ethos considers it frivolous or morally wrong to collect revenue for patent royalties?" for software patents, certainly.
weavejester 18y ago
Given that the average lifespan is around 75 years, a 50 year copyright represents the vast majority of a person's adult life. For the artist, I don't think there's much difference between that and perpetuity. And those artists it does affect, such as Sir Cliff Richard, have not exactly been fans of the limit ;) As for how to apply a continual update model to music, I'm not certain. I'm not a musician, so I couldn't venture a guess. But it seems to me that there isn't going to be a lot of money to be made in future from licensing past hits. The software industry manages okay, but perhaps you're right and music can't use the same model. In which case, musicians need to find another model that works, or slowly be consumed by a world where copying is increasingly cheap and increasingly hard to prosecute. As for patents, it's my position that people should not be able to patent software. Fortunately for me, that's still the case in the EU.